Obviously, it is still taking me some time to work out my blog-life balance. At the moment, I am on vacation in sunny Los Angeles for my annual visit to my grandmother. Last week was torture as I frantically tried to tie up numerous loose ends. Even when I stayed up all night (twice last week!) I felt rushed, rushed, rushed doing my work.

I will definitely be back to regular posting on Monday April 16, although I may try to steal a chance to post before then. Meanwhile, thank you all for your patience. I have a few new links to add to the blogroll -- and will do that ASAP on Monday at the latest. So if I have promised you a link, please bear with me until then.

I did some feminist reading on the plane finishing the very odd thesis-less but very entertaining ramblings of Elizabeth Wurtzel's book, Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women. On the way back, I hope to finally read The Handmaid's Tale, a gap in my reading for which Mythago reprimanded me a while back.

You can use this post as an open thread if you like. Meanwhile, I can't wait to get back to chatting with you all regularly.

People are wont to comment that women hold incredible power by virtue of our sexual desirability to men -- and that somehow we feminists just don't appreciate it or that we want to diminish that power. This is a silly view. One can appreciate the excitement and glamor of enchanting a member of the opposite sex, or watching another woman do so. But to mistake this for "power" reveals a profoundly androcentric view of the world. In the following passages, Elizabeth Wurtzel sums up my feelings on the matter in a much more exciting way than I ever could, first debunking the myth of female sexual "power," and then explaining why sexual desirability is perceived by men as "power:"

When we speak of prostitutes who come forward with their salacious stories and "ruin" -- I use quotation marks because in both cases these men have made comebacks -- the careers of Jimmy Swaggart and Dick Morris, when we attribute the breakup of the Beatles to Yoko Ono or the suicide of Kurt Cobain to Courtney Love, when we see the cause of the Profumo Affair to be a young woman named Mandy Rice Davies (who is now an old woman, living in a council tenancy in England, obviously not the beneficiary of any of her powerful men), when we let Henry VIII believe that Anne Boleyn bewitched him into heresy (if she's got such sorcery, it's hard to figure how she ended up beheaded), when we let porn star T.T. Boy blame the wife for the suicide of his fellow on-camera fellatio-recipient Cal Jammer (nee Randy Potes), and refer to Mrs. Jammer as "the wicked bitch" in The New Yorker, when we let any men in colonial era Massachusetts blame their infidelities on women who must be witches (once again somehow their power to arouse adultery was not adequate when it came to the hangman): every time we watch men of world events, or minor characters in our own lives, as they come completely undone over some girl, and we assume she manipulated and cajoled and coerced him into ruin and disaster, every time we believe that she brought him down, we are really letting him off the hook rather easily. If women are granted so much responsibility and credit and blame for the behavior of men that they sleep with, then that means we really do believe that any guy with a hard-on has truly cut off the blood flow to his brain . . . If men were truly sexuality's simple serfs, then Gennifer Flowers would be sitting behind the desk of the Oval Office and Bill Clinton would be a lounge singer in the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock (maybe Hillary would be Vice President). I mean, if pussy power is so potent that it can be the ruin of a British administration, that it can cause John Lennon to make some seriously unlistenable albums and pose for some embarrassingly pale-assed pictures, and if it can make Samson -- a man so strong that Samsonite luggage, indestructible even in the hands of a gorilla in a cage, is named for him -- weak and wobbly-kneed and a slave to his lust, if men are this easy to manipulate, then why did it take us until 1920 to get the vote? Why are the majority of households with incomes below the poverty line headed by women? Why have they still not found a cure for menstruation? Why does Strom Thurmond continue to be reelected to the Senate. And why is it that they can put a man -- many men -- on the moon but we can't get one woman elected into the White House? . . .

. . . Women, you see, like any other group of people obstructed from paths to power, tend to get their action on the sly. And that is precisely why, on certain occasions, it does seem that there is no power like pussy power: men are so comfortably accustomed to being in charge, they forget how drooling and besotted they can become with some woman. It is only because men assume their centrality with the nonchalance and insouciance of those who've never even thought it might be otherwise-- and I'm not sure that feminism has been able to make any real headway into this presumed privilege-- that they are still able to get all astonished and flustered by the incursion of love into the safety of their sphere . . .

OK, I am feeling frivolous and it's Friday afternoon. What better to do than tear down some MSN relationship advice, an art form invented by Amanda Marcotte (the tearing down I mean)? I am not going to do any fisking (I have to get back into that one of these days), but I am going to make some observations about two side-by-side articles on How to Be the Perfect Boyfriend and How to Be the Perfect Girlfriend. Naturally they are perfectly cringe-worthy when paired together (as they were at the MSN page today). Note: Heterosexuality is assumed here because, well, it's MSN!

The one on How to Be the Perfect Boyfriend mainly consists of positive steps men can take to make their girlfriends feel valued and loved -- displays of affection, compliments, gifts, cards, a willingness to socialize with her friends and family. The author of the column is at pains to point out that the gifts need not be extravagant -- a two dollar gift "that shows he thought of us while he was doing it" will do the trick. There is nothing in this column that expresses dissatisfaction with male habits or behavior other than a reference to a particular guy who used to undermine his girlfriend by saying “See you later . . . unless I meet some other hot chick who wants me to come home with her, ha, ha, just kidding!”

On the other hand, the author of How to Be the Perfect Boyfriend (Amy Spencer) is extremely self-deprecating about her own gender. She believes the Perfect Boyfriend should "call us on our questionable behavior." As one of her sources said: "it makes me respect a guy when he puts me in my place when I veer off-course.” Also, part of being the Perfect Boyfriend is tolerating us when we relax in our own homes (wow how lucky to be allowed to relax at home!) -- as long as we are careful not to push it, of course:

It's rare to find a man who finds it charming that you wear decade old T-shirts to bed, can eat a whole Domino's pizza by yourself, and spend Saturdays watching Laguna Beach marathons. And that's what makes him so special. Assuming we agree not to push it ("I love it that you don't care that I don't shave for weeks!"), the ideal guy would make us feel loved and accepted when we're being our most natural selves.

Is it me or shouldn't that a be a minimum requirement for any intimate relationship? And why do I have this feeling that the men out there aren't worrying about too much whether their girlfriends might stop loving them if they spend the weekend eating pizza, watching TV, and not shaving?

The article on How to Be the Perfect Girlfriend naturally provides a sharp contrast to the "please show me you love me even though I'm disgusting and in need of correction" vibe of Spencer's article. Jon Wilde, who wrote this piece apparently thought it would be cute to write it in the form of a one-sided contract. He does at least humorously acknowledge that this contract will make him happy "until you realize he is a loser who requires his girlfriends to sign legally binding contracts." But, notwithstanding this effort to dilute the obnoxious effect of his article, it comes through loud and clear that he generally finds women incredibly annoying.

In contrast to Spencer's piece which was about how to make a woman feel loved, Wilde's provisions are about how to refrain from allegedly feminine habits that he finds annoying and not to require him to express love towards her unless she goes first and never in public lest he die of shame. Wilde's "Thou shalt nots" include ordering a side salad at dinner, expecting the man to plan every date, hints or guessing games, giving the man overly cutesie nicknames, interfering with Guys' Night, or taking his favorite side of the bed. While he grudgingly acknowledges that he will have to tell his girlfriend he loves her and that he will, at times have to associate with her friends (yuck), he makes it clear as a bell that these simple acts of showing a woman she is valued are incredibly burdensome to him. Indeed, he should never again have to say, "I love you," after the first time.

And then we have this gem: Upon meeting The Man’s mother, The Lady will try to learn as many of Mother Man’s recipes as possible. And yes, The Man likes his chicken that dry. None of Spencer's "It's the thought that counts" crap -- Wilde wants effort and he expects his dinner on the table the way he likes it, dammit.

And there ya have it: our view of the sexes distilled by MSN. Next time you catch yourself thinking, "Why can't women just be more confident and assertive?" just remember this. Read and hear enough of this tripe in the popular culture and you can't help but conclude that women are incredibly irritating and loathsome creatures and that we are incredibly lucky that men even tolerate us.

Feminists are often chastised for placing too much emphasis on questions of symbolism, such as the patriarchal tradition that a woman take her husband's name upon marriage. But apparently ending that tradition is a really big deal, as the headline of this post indicates:

Opponents of Biblical Patriarchy Move Our Culture Closer to the Precipice: Now Men take their Wives' Names after Marriage

Who knew we feminist minded women and the men who love us could be so powerful? The headline refers to this story from USA today, excerpted as follows:

As Donna and Mike entered their wedding reception, an unwitting announcer told the expectant crowd, "Ladies and gentleman, put your hands together for the new Mr. and Mrs. Salinger!"

Some guests clapped, some chuckled at what they presumed was a joke and most looked at one another in confusion. The couple spent the entire reception and some of their honeymoon explaining to people what they had done.

The groom, you see, had started his day as Mike Davis and ended it by doing something precious few of his brothers-in-arms do: He took his wife's last name instead of her taking his.

Not all men who take their wives' names necessarily act from a purely feminist motivation. The article notes that Michael Buday, who is suing California to make it just as easy for a man to change his name upon marriage as for a woman, plans to adopt his wife's surname "to show his affinity for his father-in-law." But Mike Salinger did it "because I'm a big ole granola liberal and I wanted to tweak the tradition while showing my wife I love her." Say it with me together now: AWWWWW :) I was heartened that the comments thread below the article contained a number of entries by men who had made the same choice.

Right now, it is all but taken for granted that a married woman will become Mrs. Husband. A lot of even feminist minded women will go with the husband's name because it sounds better or because they want to be identifiable as a family unit or because they want to have the same last name as their children (the patriarchal naming tradition for children being far too strong for most people to fight). These are all great reasons except for the fact that it is a one-way street. Men generally don't change their last names because they like the way their wife's name sounds or for any other reason. As things stand now, name changing is always a concession the wife makes to patriarchal tradition. I fantasize about some day in the future, when name changing is a gender neutral act freeing couples to make that decision based on whose name they like better (or other factors) without seeming to support women's second class status even symbolically.

Naturally, the Ladies Against Feminism are ready to view anything and everything as more important than women's equality. In this case, the Ladies opine that tweaking patriarchal naming traditions will harm our descendents' ability to trace their geneology. (Of course, don't we already record name changes with our marriage certificates and people's maiden names on birth certificates? So how hard will it really be?) Also, does it never disturb anyone that it is virtually impossible to track down long lost living female friends because they are rendered invisible on Google by virtue of changing their names?

Conservative anti-feminists and supporters of Phyllis Schlafly frequently attempt to evoke a horror of modern feminism by quoting radical feminists Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon regarding the nature of traditional marriage, as in this paragraph from Ruth Malhotra's column at the Young American's Foundation:

. . . Many influential feminists demonstrate extreme animosity towards marriage and family life, even likening the institution of marriage to that prostitution. In Feminism: An Agenda, radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin declared that the home was a dangerous place stating, “Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.” In Feminism Unmodified, feminist law professor Catharine MacKinnon states, “Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment.” Not only are such statements absurd, but illogical, bizarre, and downright ridiculous. These “pearls of wisdom” were uttered by the leaders of the modern-day feminist movement . . .

But Phyllis Schlafly, icon of American anti-feminism, agrees with Dworkin and MacKinnon. Consider the following from a story about Shclafley's recent speech at Bates College:

At one point, Schlafly also contended that married women cannot be sexually assaulted by their husbands.

“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape,” she said.

I have heard Schlafly express this sentiment before. She honestly believes that a married woman has no right to say "no" to sex from her husband. Schlafly believes that a woman gives a man ownership of her body the moment she utters her marriage vows. Schlafly believes that a man has a right throw his wife down and physically force her to have sex, regardless of whether she is ill, in pain, in the middle of doing something else, in mourning, or just plain doesn't feel like it for whatever reason.

The only area where Schlafly's view of marriage appears to differ from that of Dworkin and MacKinnon is that Schlafly considers a woman's loss of rights over her own body within marriage to be a good thing.

What she may not be counting on is that her view of marriage provides a strong, almost impossible to counter disincentive for women to give up single status. (Who in her right mind other than Schlafly would give someone permission to force sex on her at any time for the rest of her life?) Fortunately, thanks to feminism, marital rape is now a crime throughout the United States (and I assume in most industrialized countries), thus saving marriage from total extinction.

Picture it. It's 1973. You are a housewife (not a homemaker, since that term has not yet come into vogue) busy caring for an active two-year old. In the middle of the week, your husband's boss says to your husband, "We really need to cultivate members of Such-and-Such group. Why don't you have your wife host a get-to-know-you tea for their wives and our wives?" Or perhaps your husband's boss says to your husband, "The negotiations for that big deal seem to be going really well -- but it would be probably smooth the way a bit if we all got to know each other a little better. I think you should have your wife put together a dinner party this weekend for the men involved and their wives." Your husband calls you to relay this command and next thing you know you are planning, shopping, scrubbing, polishing, decorating, cooking, and stressing out. Naturally, none of this work is compensated in any way. At the end of the dinner party, your husband's boss turns to you with a condescending smile and says, "This was really quite a spread that you put on. It's nice that you have something to keep you busy."

This kind of thing happens to you all the time throughout the '70s until wider acceptance of feminism made verboten this expectation of having one's employees' wives at your beck and call for massive unpaid projects. Your daughter naturally becomes The Happy Feminist early on because, even as a little girl, she is sick and tired of seeing you regularly treated with an enormous lack of respect.

Anti-feminists try to divide-and-conquer by pitting housewives against feminists. But feminists didn't invent the widespread lack of respect for housewivesthat admittedly sometimes colors the words of feminists too (like Linda Hirshman -- who, by the way, has been loudly criticized in feminist cirles for her derogatory language). A lack of respect is inevitable when a class of people has no money, no power, and no public voice. Being taken for granted is inevitable when you are simply doing something you have little choice in.

I cannot claim to have studied this phenomenon in a sociologically rigorous manner -- but my personal experience and observation is that the status of homemakers has increased with the rise of feminism. Even the relatively new term, "homemaker," evinces a recognition that women who cook and clean and sew and decorate and budget and care for children are more than just wives who stay at home. Today, homemakers are more powerful than ever before. They are more organized, more outspoken in the public sphere, and more likely to have educations and careers that make them less dependent on their husbands than in the past. They are less likely to be disregarded or excluded from the conversation or treated condescendingly if politics or other Important Subjects arise. They are less likely to be taken for granted since they have other options.

Those who claim to prize the efforts of women in the home will often inadvertently reveal how little they think of how women at home spend their time. Consider this profile Constitution Party leader Howard Phillips wrote about his wife, Peggy Phillips, when she was awarded the Homemaker of the Year award by Phyllis Schlafley. The profile speaks at length about the activities and accomplishments of Mrs. Phillips's father, her husband (Howard Phillips himself), and each of her children -- but says nothing at all of what Mrs. Phillips DID in the home, other than giving birth. There is an oblique reference to the youngest son's homeschooling, but it is not even clear that Mrs. Phillips conducted the homeschooling, although presumably she did. The fact is that her labors and her efforts are taken for granted and invisible even when she is purportedly being honored for them!

Of course, homemaker and feminist are not mutually exclusive terms. There are plenty of stay-at-home-mothers who ARE feminists. I can't speak for them but I suspect they realize that the furtherance of women's equality in all spheres of life will help to make homemaking a truly voluntary choice and will thereby also raise the status of all women.

UPDATED: I bet I can write a a better tribute to a homemaker than most anti-feminists!

Contrary to right-wing propaganda which holds that liberals want to remove all references to the Bible from public life, most liberals probably favor the teaching of Biblical literacy in public schools -- as long as it is done without preaching or denigrating the Bible. I disagree profoundly with much of what the Bible contains but the fact is that it is a foundational text for western culture. I certainly felt it important enough, notwithstanding my agnosticism/atheism, to take a number of courses in the Bible at my private high school and my private college (including a course called "The Hebrew Bible" taught by a teacher who happened to be a rabbi, a one year survey on Christian theology, a language class on New Testament Greek, and a seminar on New Testament Eschatology taught by a professor who happened to be an ordained Prebyterian minister). After all, teaching the facts is a cornerstone of liberalism. Love it or hate it, the Bible is a fact of life in western culture. Even if we are not ourselves Christian, we should understand the religious beliefs that are motivating the majority of our fellow citizens. If we are Christian, we should understand what our key religious text says.

According to Van Biema, polls show that 2/3 of Americans believe that the Bible contains the answers to "all or most of life's basic questions" but 1/2 of Americans cannot even name one Gospel. Only 44% of Evangelical teens could identify a particular quote as coming from the Sermon on the Mount. Van Biema observes that such ignorance may hobble many Americans' understanding of their own religion, and also prevents those of us who are neither Jewish nor Christian from fully understanding our own secular literature, western art and music, and American political ideas such as John Winthrop's "shining city on a hill" not to mention the current political influence and ideas of the Religious Right.

So can we teach the Bible without causing a whole cascade of problems? The problem is that there will be abuses. Undoubtedly, teaching the Bible in many places will include all sorts of constitutionally impermissible conduct such as praying or proselytizing. There will be some places where non-Christian students are made to feel profoundly uncomfortable in their own public schools. There will be efforts to privilege Christianity above other religions.

But how I would love to see American students given the tools to not be so painfully ignorant without teachers seeming to endorse or put down Christianity. Certainly, that ideal was met in the classes I took in liberal secular institutions. It is possible for students of all religious beliefs to study the Bible and ask hard questions (as in my New Testamant Eschatology seminar) like, "What did Jesus say about the end of the world? What did he mean? What do the parables tell us about Jesus' view of the Kingdom? Also, what did theologians and scholars conclude about Jesus's beliefs? Based on your reading of the Bible, do you agree with so-and-so's conclusions about what Jesus meant? If so, what implications might that have for Christian belief? How does Christian eschatology differ from Jewish eschatology?" And on and on. You don't need to be a believer to grapple with those questions. And in all the classes I took, often side by side with students studying for the ministry, I never once felt that anyone was trying to convert me or that our differing perspectives prevented us from discussing the Bible's meaning and influence together. Am I too optimistic in my faith that this can happen in public schools across America, even in places like Texas or South Carolina? Van Biema gives an example of just such a class taught by a conservative Protestant Christian.

Of course, I also wish that public schools would teach other world religions, the understanding of which help to illuminate our own religious beliefs and which may help us to understand millions of non-Christian people around the world with whom we have political, business and other types of relations as the "global village" gets smaller and smaller. Am I too pessimistic when I assume that many conservative Christians would object to that?

Shocked to hear me say that? Don't be. Feminism doesn't guarantee a woman a date, or safety from harm, lifelong happiness, or greater health (although it has always been my opinion that being a feminist improves one's chances at all those things). The purpose of feminism is equality of opportunity, freedom, and dignity for all women. What a woman chooses to do with that equality is up to her. And I trust women to make their own choices for what they want to do with their lives, even if their choices involve risks -- just as much as I trust a man to make an intelligent choice as to whether he wants to risk his health playing a sport like boxing or football.

That's why I am not unduly disturbed by a Swedishstudy (touted by anti-feministcommenters) purporting to show that women who take on stressful jobs traditionally held by men suffer health consequences for doing so. Of course, I have no idea how valid the study is. As a commenter at Feministing noted, the articles use terms like "associated with" and "strongly linked," which imply that the study found correlation rather than causation. It is also unclear the degree to which women in the workplace suffer greater health problems. Is it a significant difference or a negligible difference? In addition, it should be noted that the conclusions one draws from the study may vary depending on your political outlook. If you don't like the idea of feminism, you're bound to say that too much feminism is the problem. If you are a feminist, you are bound to say that too little feminism is the problem -- if working women weren't expected to work "the second shift" at home, maybe they would have more time to eat right, exercise, and take some time to de-stress.

Be all that as it may, I don't have much of a beef with the theory that a stressful job takes a toll on one's health and that therefore women taking on these jobs often experience resulting health problems. As a litigator coping with long hours, constant deadlines, constant conflicts with others, and the stress of answering to bosses and judges and clients, I am certain that these stresses pose risks to my health that full-time homemaking would not.* All around me, I see overweight lawyers, out-of-shape lawyers, alcoholic lawyers, and depressed or anxious lawyers -- many of whom are at risk for heart conditions, strokes, diabetes, liver problems, suicide and other dangers. For the last 25 years, significant numbers of women have taken on the risks of stressful and often adversarial work traditionally borne overwhelmingly by men.

If I were inclined to a simplistic analysis (as are apparently the headline writers for the Daily Mail and the Guardian), I might conclude that "feminism" or the opportunity to pursue the same career as a man has been "bad" for me. Wouldn't it be "best for women" if we didn't have these opportunities or chose not to take them?

But under that kind of analysis, the same could be said for all sorts of decisions men make without question -- such as participating in extreme contact sports, joining the military, or working at a stressful job. Or one could argue that it is "best for women" if female college students were given a curfew as in days of yore or allowed to travel in public only in the company of a male guardian, a practice discussed approvingly by at least one extremist. I may indeed be safer traveling only with a male guardian (assuming he is himself trustworthy!) but at what cost? I may indeed experience less stress staying home full-time but at what cost?

And that's thing. Adults make cost-benefit decisions. When men do so, we don't question it. A young man decides that the risk of broken bones, concussions, and the toll on his body is worth it for the thrill of playing football! (And oh, more young women are making that decision too these days!) A young female college student decides that moving about freely at night is worth being less safe than she might if she just stayed in her dorm (as do young men who risk assault and accidents at greater rates than do young women)! And people of both sexes embrace careers that take a toll on them so that they can earn a living for their families, do work that they love, and/or use their talents to benefit their community. And women often make the decision to stay home full-time even at the risk of becoming economically vulnerable.** But it's only women who are subjected to hand wringing about "what's best" for them -- because too many of us still can't get our minds around the notion that women are capable of making weighing risks and consequences decisions for ourselves.

*Of course, anti-feminist policies and practices also often pose certain risks to the health of women and girls. This link provides but one example.

** I bet that someone is thinking, "Well, what a minute aren't you willing to criticize a woman's choice to stay home?" Ha ha! You caught me! I DO think that there is a significant sacrifice to staying home that the press rarely discusses, frequently choosing instead to rhapsodize about the "opt out" revolution. I also think there is massive hypocrisy in the way homemaking and the accompanying career sacrifices are often presented as the most wonderful thing in the world for women, but never as a wonderful opportunity for men. I also think that it would be better for women as a class if MORE women would pursue ambitious careers in public life. And finally, I think that there are societal circumstances that place more pressure on women to stay home than men. Nonetheless, I don't think it is inconsistent for me to say that I respect a woman's right and her ability to make her own cost-benefit decision to stay home based on her own preferences and the particular circumstances she faces.

A while back, a female colleague and I interviewed a young businessman who was a witness in a commercial dispute we were handling. We went to his office on a warm summer day, and he was sitting behind his desk with his tie somewhat loosened and the sleeves of his Oxford shirt rolled up. It was hard not to notice that this young man was particularly good looking, and the bit of skin he was showing -- his neck and his forearms -- didn't help. As I asked him questions, I couldn't help but notice that my normally calm, cool and competent colleague was uncharacteristically quiet. When my colleague and I were driving back to my office, she said, "Oh my God, I could barely even look at him without blushing." In truth, both my colleague and I had felt discomfited during the interview.

But here's the thing. At no time did it occur to either of us to blame this young man for our reactions to him. We didn't question his right to exist in the workplace or his right to make himself a bit more comfortable on a hot day by rolling up his sleeves and loosening his tie. We didn't feel any hostility towards him. We didn't feel entitled to leer at him or make any comment about his sexual attractiveness. Of course we didn't! There is no cultural precedent for the notion that men have an obligation to constantly police themselves to make sure that women don't feel uncomfortable or start thinking about sex.

But The Rebelution, a site by teenaged fundamentalist superstars Alex and Brett Harris, and its readers are reveling in the ol' double standard. In the site's Modesty Survey, hundreds of Christian boys (and some grown men) provided answers to Christian girls' questions about precisely what articles of apparel might prove to be "stumbling blocks" to the Christian male's quest to avoid lust. The survey is predicated on the notion that girls and women themselves have a moral obligation to help boys and men to avoid lust. The questions and responses go into a disturbing amount of detail. For example, while most young men did not see a problem with "v-shaped necklaces" (phew!), one requested, "Please don't wear them with v-neck shirts or thin shirts that are depressed by the pendant's weight." And there are lots of other extraordinarily detailed responses to precisely where the sight of a bit of female skin may be a cause for sin.

It was also striking how the boys felt all too entitled to request or dictate changes in female behavior without any regard for how those changes would limit and restrict the lives of the girls. They thought nothing of suggesting all sorts of restrictions on bathing suits, dance outfits, and gym clothes -- the primary purpose of which is not to titillate men but to allow freedom of movement for women engaging in physical activity. Can you imagine if there was a suggestion that the boys not wear those tight little baseball uniforms when playing baseball or that they wear long pants while mowing the lawn? Of course not -- because the boys' right to live their lives is beyond question. The girls on the other hand bear the burden of having to worry about things like having to turn their back when taking off a sweatshirt in front of a boy, or not appearing too confident in their bodies:

Girls usually know when they’re doing this though, I think. Like if a girl who already has a very confident air about her, who dresses very attractively, then sits cross-legged on a couch with her arms spread out over the back of the couch, smiling… Haha, okay, you kinda get the idea. This is awkward.

Sure, there is lip service given to the notion that controlling lust is ultimately the boy's responsibility -- but they are happy to place the ultimate burden to restrict their lives and worry about every detail of their conduct and dress on the girls, with notably no reverse survey on the details of male modesty. Huh, funny that.

Finally, I would note (as Jill already has) the hostility directed at girls and women in comments such as this response to how boys feel about girls who flaunt their bodies:

Saddened; disappointed; sometimes angered. They’re distracting good men, dishonoring God and marriage, and offering themselves cheaply–which makes me desire even more strongly a girl who is modest, who is valuable. I would be disingenuous if I didn’t concede that these kinds of girls are a temptation. But I always remind myself that if a girl flaunts herself before I marry her, she’ll do the same thing afterward. As a husband, that would make me pretty mad.What would make me happy is dedicating all my energy to loving a young woman who reserves herself for me.

As I have noted before, the theoretical underpinnings of the Christian modesty movement are essentially A Recipe for Misogyny -- not to mention an excuse to control (and humiliate) women. (Girls in the survey are advised to run their outfits past their fathers and brothers for approval.) The fact that there is no reverse modesty survey for male dress proves that this mindset is at the very least predicated on the notion of women and girls as second class citizens.

Annie Hunter suggests that I open some threads up for discussion while I get back on my feet. And in response to my last post on the Wicker Man, Aideen asks: What is the most misogynist movie you have ever seen? (and why?)